Awareness of and Involvement in Disaster Risk Management

The national and local government entities were asked various questions related to their awareness of and involvement in DRM. Amongst the Government Ministries, two (40%) reported that they belonged to regional and/or national disaster management networks, citing regional entities such as the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA) and local entities such as the National Disaster Coordinating Network and National Disaster Risk Management Council. All of the Parish Councils which responded indicated that they belonged to regional and/or national disaster management networks with ten of them indicating that they belonged to the Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management (ODPEM) and two indicating that they were part of the National Disaster Committee.

With respect to DRM plans, of the total respondents at both the national and local government levels, 89% reported having DRM plans in place, with 5.6% indicating that no plan was in place and 5.6% of respondents indicating that they were unsure whether a plan was in place. Significantly, all twelve of the Parish Councils reported having a plan in place whilst only 67% of the Government Ministries reported having a plan in place.

Ninety-four percent of the entities at the national and local government levels indicated that a Disaster Management Planning Committee was in existence. This includes five of the Government Ministries, whose Committees were comprised of Senior Management, Middle Management, Ancillary Staff, and Other Members. Similarly, amongst the Parish Councils which indicated that they had Planning Committees, membership was also comprised of Senior and Middle Management, along with other Committee members.

Provision for Persons with Disabilities in Disaster Risk Management

The various local and government entities were asked whether the existing DRM plans within their entities made specific provisions for PWDs and whether any sorts of facilities were in place for PWDs. Although 89% of respondents had reported having DRM plans in place, only 53% of these indicated that these plans make provisions for PWDs. Twenty-four percent indicated that no provision for PWDs was made in these plans and 12% reported being unsure as to whether provision was made. Significantly, 64% of the Parish Councils reported that the plans make provisions for PWDs, whilst 33% of the Government Ministries indicated that the DRM plans in existence in their entities make provisions for PWDs.

Additionally, only 39% of all respondents at the national and local government levels reported that their entities carried out any sort of DRM programmes specifically for PWDs. For Parish Councils, 50% reported that they carry out DRM programmes for PWDs whilst 17% of the Government Ministries carry out programmes in DRM for PWDs. Within the Ministries, the programmes included Communications (that is, communicating information about potential hazards, impacts and risks before events) and Emergency Procedures for PWDs (actions to be take in response to a threat or an emergency/disaster), and these programmes were targeted at the visually impaired, hearing impaired, mobility impaired, and the colour blind. Twenty-seven percent of Parish Councils stated that their programmes included Warning Messages (that is, messages given to alert the recipient to the threat immediately prior to an event), 9% indicated that their programmes included Communications, 46% that their programmes included Emergency Procedures for PWDs which were focused on the visually, hearing, mobility, and mentally impaired, and 18% had other programmes (see Figure 1 below). Amongst the Ministries, none had programmes for Warning Messages, 50% had programmes which included Communications, 50% had programmes for Emergency Procedures for PWDs, and none had any other programmes (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1. Programmes carried out by entities which are specifically aimed towards PWDs.

Access to Disaster Risk Management Information

As indicated, all respondents were asked to indicate whether special programmes were undertaken for PWDs, the types of programmes carried out and the specific target groups. They were also asked about provision for and communication to PWDs during times of emergency. For communicating warnings to PWDs, the respondents reported communicating warnings through disability organisations, Community Emergency Response Teams (CERTs), specially designated persons, fire wardens and fire monitors, and special warning systems such as strobe lights. One respondent reported that there is no special system in place for warnings.

At the local government level, 75% of the Parish Councils indicated that assistance is provided to PWDs in times of emergency, which includes, battening down of homes, stocking of emergency supplies, transportation for evacuation, emergency plan development, special access to emergency relief, and provision of funding/assistance for recovery. For the Government Ministries, 60% stated that in times of emergency there is provision of assistance to PWDs. The Ministries cited amongst the type of assistance transportation for evacuation, emergency plan development, special access to emergency relief, and provision of funding/assistance for recovery.

Inclusion in Disaster Risk Management Planning and Preparedness

All entities were asked whether there were any PWDs employed in their organisation. For the national government entities, three of the six (50%) indicated that they had PWDs amongst their employees, whilst two (17%) of the twelve Parish Councils indicated that they had PWDs amongst their employment. Two Ministries indicated that they have facilities in place for PWDs, including, special bathrooms, special elevators, and ramps. At the local government level, five of the Parish Councils (42%) stated that they have facilities for PWDs, including ramps, special bathrooms, and other facilities.

Importantly as well, all of the Government Ministries who responded indicated that they were aware of the Persons with Disabilities Act, whilst eleven (92%) of the Parish Councils who responded stated that they knew of the Act.

National and local government entities were asked about the inclusion of PWDs on DRM Planning Committees, about special roles accorded PWDs during times of emergency, and to offer recommendations with respect to facilitating PWDs in the workplace. With respect to the inclusion of PWDs in DRM Planning and Preparedness, none of the Government Ministries reported that PWDs are included on DRM Planning Committees, rather, 80% indicated that no PWDs were included on DRM Planning Committees and 20% indicated that they were not sure. Four of the Ministries also indicated that PWDs were not given any special roles during times of emergencies. Amongst the Parish Councils, however, 33% indicated that PWDs are included on Planning Committees whilst 67% indicated that they were not (Figure 2). Nine of the Councils, though, stated that PWDs were not accorded any special roles during emergencies whilst three said that they were uncertain if any special roles were allocated to PWDs during these times.

Figure 2. Inclusion of persons with disabilities on Disaster Management planning committees in national and local government entities.

Significantly, all of the Ministries and Parish Councils who responded to the survey felt that more should be done to facilitate PWDs in the workplace during both normal times and times of emergency.

PWDs and DRM in Jamaica

Jamaica developed the country's National Policy for Persons with Disabilities (NPOPWDS) in 1999. The policy states that the policy development process was initiated through self-advocacy and involved several umbrella organisations representing persons with impairments. These organisations emerged in the early 1980s and resulted in PWDs becoming more vocal and advocating for their rights. One of the major goals of the policy is to "integrate persons with disabilities into society so that they can participate fully in all aspects of society" (National Advisory Council on Disability, 1999). The policy affirms the right of all persons to information and calls for the widespread use of "alternate means of communication" (National Advisory Council on Disability, 1999).

With reference to disaster preparedness, the policy states that the government and the private sector should ensure that the special needs of PWDs are taken into account in a disaster. It also emphasises the importance of ensuring communication with PWDs and their inclusion in DRM. Interestingly, in the policy's Preamble, the view is expressed that there is a need for legislation which would help to remove some of the societal barriers and contribute to a shift to a new norm, that of inclusion rather than marginalisation. It was not until 15 years later that The Disabilities Act 2014 was passed. It legally establishes the Jamaica Council for Persons with Disabilities and a Disabilities Rights Tribunal, provides for equal access to all aspects of national life, protection from discrimination and access to education and training for PWDs. In addition, it calls for public passenger vehicles and public and commercial premises to be readily accessible to PWDs. The Act does not speak specifically to DRM and PWDs.

The Disabilities Act 2014 defines "persons with disabilities" as person(s) with a "long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which may hinder his full and effective participation in society, on an equal basis with other persons" (The Disabilities Act, 2014, p. 4). However, some authors, (e.g. Wisner, 2002; Hemingway & Priestley, 2006) subscribing to the social model of disability, state that an impairment becomes a disability because of societal factors. Hemingway and Priestley (2006) argue that disability is no longer perceived as a natural consequence of impairment.

DRM theory also recognises vulnerability as constructed by society. The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) defines vulnerability as, "The conditions determined by physical, social, economic, and environmental factors or processes, which increase the susceptibility of a community to the impact of hazards" (UNISDR, 2004). Thus, different members of a society may be exposed to the same hazard but may experience different vulnerability depending on socio-economic circumstances, access to power, gender, age and other factors. Cutter, Boruff and Shirley (2003) describe vulnerability as being based on inequalities which shape the susceptibility of groups or individuals and their ability to respond. Cutter et al. (2003) also recognise vulnerability of place – characteristics of the built environment, growth rates and other factors which can contribute to social vulnerability (Cutter et al., 2003).

In DRM, PWDs are often cast as being vulnerable by virtue of their impairment. Historically, this has led to the treatment of PWDs as victims in need of assistance (Wisner, 2002). However, Hemingway and Priestley (2006) argue that PWDs vulnerability to human disasters is embedded within social structures, institutional discrimination and the presence of environmental barriers. The Disabilities Act 2014 states among its principal objectives to "promote individual dignity and individual autonomy, including the freedom of choice and independence of a person with a disability" and to "ensure full and effective participation in society of persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others [emphasis added]" (The Disabilities Act, 2014, p. 5). If persons with impairments are to be independent and are to participate fully and effectively on an equal basis with others then it is clear that discrimination, environmental and institutional barriers must be removed in order that the impairment is not 'disabling'.

Facilities for PWDs in Normal Times

In Jamaica, PWDs face barriers outside of crises and emergencies. From Figure 3 it is notable that only 33% of responding Ministries and 42% of Parish Councils reported having special facilities for PWDs in the workplace. Fifty-eight percent of Parish Councils and 50% of Ministries reported that there were no special facilities for PWDs in the workplace. Sixteen percent of the Ministries who responded said that they were not sure if there were special facilities for PWDs in the workplace. Of those, 29% of Parish Councils and 33% of Ministries had specially equipped sanitary facilities; 57% of Parish Councils and 33% of Ministries had ramps; none of the Parish Councils and 17% of the Ministries reported elevators in buildings with more than one level; and 14% of Parish Councils and 17% of Ministries had other special facilities (see Figure 4). None of the Parish Councils nor Ministries had any special signage for PWDs.

Figure 3. Are facilities in place for persons with disabilities?

Figure 4. Special facilities in place for PWDs

During the focus group discussions with the hearing impaired, some of the everyday barriers faced were related. These include lack of sign language interpreters at hospitals, government offices, police stations and private sector entities such as banks. Members of the group stated that they sometimes try to write their questions but persons are often impatient, do not want to read these questions, and are unwilling to write answers to queries and other information. In an emergency there is no method of communicating with the emergency services using telephones. Some persons had downloaded an application from the Ministry of National Security which uses Global Positioning System (GPS) and allows the emergency services to locate the person who is texting. While not developed for PWDs, it is useful to them. However, most of the hearing-impaired persons attending the focus groups were not aware of the application.

Problems for PWDs encountering environmental and other barriers become more acute during crisis situations when the threat includes injury and possible death. Chou et al. (2004) in studying the effects of the 1999 Taiwan earthquake report that factors which increased the risk of death included moderate physical disability, psychiatric illness and socio-economic status.

Access to Information

In the context of DRM, barriers would include, for example, denial of access to information by not providing sign language interpretation, no text accompanying visual displays and use of colour coding only, as opposed to hatching, for warning signs. Thus, persons with impairments often cannot benefit from information which could prove vital to their safety.

Njelesani, Cleaver, Tataryn and Nixon (2012) report that evacuation plans for Hurricane Katrina, were geared towards persons who could walk, drive, see or hear. Some PWDs were evacuated without medicines, medical equipment, wheelchairs or service animals. Communication of warnings and precautionary information did not reach some persons with hearing impairments because of a lack of sign language. In addition, persons who were visually impaired could not understand the significance of some visual displays because there were no audio descriptions.

Difficulty in accessing information was also reported by the focus group of the hearing impaired. Precautionary and warning information broadcast by commercial media in many instances does not cater to PWDs. One participant stated that on the approach of Hurricane Matthew in 2016, she watched television, could see the track of the hurricane and see it getting closer and closer, but there was no text explaining the figures and maps that she was seeing. There was little sign language interpretation on national television channels. Some persons related that they found sign language interpretation for warnings on Facebook and followed updates there. Others watched foreign cable channels which provided sign language interpretation.

When the focus group of the hearing impaired were asked about precautionary information for other hazards, it was stated that the Parish Disaster Coordinator had done an earthquake drill at the school so students and staff knew what to do in an earthquake. However, no one had received information on earthquake mitigation measures such as better building practices or preventing non-structural damage in the home.

During the Chikungunya (ChikV) outbreak of 2015, many of the persons attending the focus group discussions became aware of the situation only when they saw persons becoming ill or when they became ill themselves. Some homes were visited by health personnel but they were unable to communicate with the hearing-impaired as the health personnel could not sign; however, they showed pictures of mosquitoes and the name of the disease. When asked if they were aware of the current (2016) Zika threat, most persons were not. One person had the impression that Zika develops from ChikV. Most of the women were unaware of the government message advising women to avoid getting pregnant.

Students at the other educational institution for PWDs (the special education school) were accompanied by teachers and caregivers. The latter group indicated that most persons, including PWDs, would find weather information given in latitude and longitude difficult to understand. In general, caregivers took the responsibility for ensuring that precautionary and alerting information is understood.

Interestingly, students who had not been participating in the conversation responded when asked about earthquake precautions. Many were able to state or demonstrate the actions to be taken during an earthquake, as the Parish Disaster Coordinator had conducted a drill at the school. This might suggest that demonstration of precautionary measures may be a good method for providing information for this group.

Although PWD-accessible warning messages and precautionary information are sparse on commercial media, the results suggest that the importance of alerting PWDs to potential emergency or disaster situations is appreciated by respondents. Seventeen percent of Parish Councils and 17% of Ministries indicated having Special Alarms in place for PWDs; 50% of Parish Councils and 67% of Ministries reported having specially designated persons to assist PWDs; 17% of Parish Councils indicated special access/egress for PWDs but no Ministries had this in place; and 17% of Parish Councils and 17% of Ministries had special signage in place for PWDs during emergencies (see Figure 5). Parish Councils and Ministries reported warning systems or procedures for PWDs. Systems in place at the parish level include designated members of CERTs being given responsibility for warning PWDs, strobe lights in offices and one Parish Disaster Committee reported using an umbrella organisation for PWDs to assist with alerting and warning. Ministries reported that fire wardens and monitors have been assigned responsibility for warning PWDs. However, these measures are not widespread enough to benefit the majority of PWDs.

Figure 5. Provisions made for PWDs during emergencies

Special Programmes for PWDs

Interestingly, almost 71% of the entities reported the existence of special provisions for PWDs during disasters and emergencies. Respondents reported that assistance during emergencies was in place for the visually impaired, the colour blind, the hearing impaired as well as those persons with developmental and mental challenges.

The types of assistance available for PWDs included battening down and securing of homes, stocking of emergency supplies, transportation for evacuation, special access to emergency relief and designated persons to assist PWDs. In the post-impact period, Parish Councils reported provision of funding and/or assistance for recovery. Pre-impact assistance such as battening and securing premises and stocking of emergency supplies are important. Jagger (2011) from her study in Jamaica, reported that PWDs did not want to go to shelters, but preferred to stay at home and get help with battening down, debris removal and clean-up. Persons with disabilities also indicated that access to home and community after the storm was a higher priority than access to a shelter (Jagger, 2011). This may reflect the condition of the shelters – not being PWD equipped – but it may also reflect that PWDs feel they will receive less support away from their residences. Some members of the focus groups indicated that they received help from family and other community members during and after disasters. This level of support might not be available at an emergency shelter. For the focus group at the special education institution, all the PWDs present required caregivers. Shelter facilities would be required to have enough space for PWDs, caregivers and equipment.

Inclusion in DRM Planning

Developing a Disability-friendly Disaster Plan

Kailes and Enders (2007) propose a function-based approach to emergency planning for persons with impairments and suggest that this approach should be interwoven into emergency planning. The CMIST framework comprises five function-based planning elements: communication, medical needs, maintaining functional independence, supervision and transportation which emergency planners can use to plan for a wide range of requirements for persons with impairments as well as those with functional limitations such as language differences, hearing or cognitive limitations which are not met by the standard emergency planning approaches. An adaptation of the CMIST framework to Jamaican DRM planning could see emergency planners adjusting their approaches in the following areas:

Further Research

The results of this exploratory study indicate that disability inclusiveness has not been achieved by many government entities charged with responsibility for policy implementation and with the responsibility of setting the example by obeying the country's laws. There are indications that efforts are being made, including examples of pilot-type projects to work with PWDs on DRM issues. Respondents showed a high level of awareness of the necessity of inclusion. The question seems to be how to translate these pilot initiatives as well as awareness and knowledge into action on a wider scale in order that all or the majority of PWDs may benefit. The need for further research on inclusiveness of PWDs in the public sector is suggested. This should include surveys across all government entities including statutory bodies, departments and agencies. There is need for further definition of barriers to inclusiveness and challenges to policy implementation and adherence to the law among public sector entities. Inclusion of a wider cross-section of PWDs and disabled persons' organisations through the use of surveys and focus groups to document their experiences and to differentiate experiences of persons with different impairments is also indicated. There is an opportunity for interdisciplinary research which could include examination of societal attitudes to impairments and to PWDs and how these attitudes might affect disability inclusiveness. Research into the best methods of providing differentiated information to persons with different types of impairments would also be useful.